• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Has Anyone Else Had This Question On CGC Graded Books?

10 posts in this topic

Having listed a few CGC Graded Books on Ebay recently, I received an email from someone asking me whether or not the 'Universal' blue label had "small red" or "large white" scales on the back left hand corner. I'm sure alot of you know that the earlier CGC 'Universal' labels had the larger scales, which changed to the smaller red ones you now see on the back of the label. What was most interesting from my stand-point, was that this person obviously had decided to himself that the earlier CGC grading was more lenient than it is now. Well it's something that most of us who have used CGC almost since inception universally (not a pun) already agree - that the grading is far more strict now than it was a few years ago.

 

Of course the sending in of large scale 'Universal' grades to be re-cased gets back small red 'Universal' scales, but it does look like another dimension of thinking about CGC grades is blossoming - Will there be listings soon reading "CGC 9.4 Small Scales!! " ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't heard that one before, but until CGC put the date of grading (if ever) on the label, then collectors will have to do all they can to determine when the book was graded.

This kind of thing will start to happen more and more, especially as we get closer to the 7 year optimum lifespan of a CGC slabbed book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

homer,

 

don't know if i read it correctly, but CGC is far more lenient now than it was when they first surfaced due to dealers/auction houses complaining about the grading was too strict. many books that were graded by CGC in it's first year were resubmitted and got higher grades by .2 or some cases .4 higher. blush.gifshocked.gifwink.gif

 

p-daddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"don't know if i read it correctly, but CGC is far more lenient now than it was when they first surfaced due to dealers/auction houses complaining about the grading was too strict. many books that were graded by CGC in it's first year were resubmitted and got higher grades by .2 or some cases .4 higher. "

 

Supa - I don't want to veer off target, but as someone who has gotten more than 600 personally graded in the last two years I can tell you that 2000's 9.4 is now an 9.0 The simple reason why is that the graders have seen thousands more books than they had a few years ago. I'll bet there's not a person on this forum that hasn't had a previously thought of NM book come back infinitely lower - Conversation after conversation I have with high-grade dealers attests to this. It is especially true of Golden and early Silver-Age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I've ran into that..I have a bunch of books that were graded (according to collectors society) in '00..the 9.4's look as solid as any other 9.4..I have however had 2 9.2's that seemed a bit overgraded one was a '00 the other was '01

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would say that Cgc graded more strictly across the board in their 1st 18 months worth of submissions. Now it seems like they have graded more harshly on late silver & bronze bks b/c they have indeed seen so many that they have become jaded. There may never be another Hulk 181 graded cgc 9.8 again. shocked.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites